Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

No "we" haven't, as there are lots of people rejecting that new culture. Maybe half the people, as a guesstimate.

Cultural values are instilled at a young age, that's why we musn't allow political influences to enter the classroom. Keep cultural education at the grassroots level. Stick to the 3 R's. It's public school, meaning those of different culture all go there, including devout christians, muslims and jews, and those who are African abd Asian.

In other words, you want a multi-cultural society, you have to understand and respect the values of other cultures.

You are entitled to believe what you want and raise your kids according to your beliefs and values, but you're not entitled to change the values in my family. As long as we follow that, things will be fine.

I am starting to think that we actually don't have a good idea about "our" culture.

Not sure what you mean by half of people rejecting freedom, but it sounds wrong to me.

I wish stand by what I said about freedom, hedonism and nihilism in the meantime.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

 

1. There is no freedom of speech, when you have ideas that are now socially unacceptable to challenge.

2. Your sense of freedom should have an asterisk next to it. 

1. I think socially unacceptable ideas are a mainstay of any culture, I would guess.

2. I assume this is because of state number one, ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not sure what you mean by half of people rejecting freedom, but it sounds wrong to me.

I never said they rejected freedom, you are putting words in my mouth. That's dishonest, and I wont waste time on you if you start doing that. 

I trouble myself to think about the topic and respond politely to you, but if you're going to troll me, I'm not going to bother responding to you further. You will be put on my ignore list.

My "guesstimate" comes from the basic observation that voters are divided between liberal and conservative parties by about 50:50. It is actually slightly leaning toward liberalism, but if you look at polls or election results it's close enough for argument's sake. US elections are almost right down the middle, while in Canada we are more liberal.

"A May 2016 poll from Forum Research found that around 16% of respondents had considered pulling their children out of public schools in reaction to the new curriculum, and that 48% of Ontarians approved of the curriculum while 36% opposed it."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_sex_education_curriculum_controversy

....

Even if not exactly 50-50, you are dismissing a sizeable portion of the population. The Sikhs, hindus, muslims, etc who make up a significant portion of our society. Granted they are not progressive white liberals.

I gave you that list of religious groups already; from that you should have gleaned what I meant by calling it 50-50. You should have been able to figure that out.

It doesn't seem to me you are actually interested in this discussion, other than giving your personal opinion. But this isn't about what you find acceptable. It's about the thousands of people with families who differ from your liberal views and they deserve to be heard. Not written off as people who don't want "freedom". 

Your version of freedom is what they would call being a sinner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. I never said they rejected freedom, you are putting words in my mouth. That's dishonest, and I wont waste time on you if you start doing that. 

2. My "guesstimate" comes from the basic observation that voters are divided between liberal and conservative parties by about 50:50. It is actually slightly leaning toward liberalism, but if you look at polls or election results it's close enough for argument's sake. US elections are almost right down the middle, while in Canada we are more liberal.

 

2. Even if not exactly 50-50, you are dismissing a sizeable portion of the population. The Sikhs, hindus, muslims, etc who make up a significant portion of our society. Granted they are not progressive white liberals.

3. I gave you that list of religious groups already; from that you should have gleaned what I meant by calling it 50-50. You should have been able to figure that out.

4. It doesn't seem to me you are actually interested in this discussion, other than giving your personal opinion.  

1. Sorry, it was an honest mistake.

2. 3. You have to believe that I didn't understand what you meant, and somewhat still don't.

You're saying that a significant number of people don't accept our culture.  Ok.  

Given that I somewhat disparaged our culture, though, to begin with do you agree with me that this could be a good thing?

4. I am interested.  Especially because your take is nuanced enough that it went right over my head.

Please rest assured that I am indeed interested.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Sorry, it was an honest mistake.

2. 3. You have to believe that I didn't understand what you meant, and somewhat still don't.

You're saying that a significant number of people don't accept our culture.  Ok.  

Given that I somewhat disparaged our culture, though, to begin with do you agree with me that this could be a good thing?

4. I am interested.  Especially because your take is nuanced enough that it went right over my head.

Please rest assured that I am indeed interested.

Sorry I got a little excited there, haha. Oh well, no harm done, no foul.

 

Now back to page after page of opinionated nitpicking and inanity.   ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2023 at 4:18 PM, Perspektiv said:

There is no freedom of speech, when you have ideas that are now socially unacceptable to challenge.

Then there's never been and never will be freedom of speech.

Seriously, this is the dumbest thing I've read on this forum so far. Freedom of speech is about the government, not social acceptance, plus there will always be ideas considered taboo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2023 at 2:43 PM, Michael Hardner said:

those who demonize lgbtq+, call them groomers and

You dislike use of the term "groomer", that's clear. But here in an article the term "influencer" is used.

The marketing firm that came up with the idea to team up Bud Light with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney has been in “serious panic mode” for the last couple of months.

https://torontosun.com/business/money-news/ad-agency-that-paired-bud-light-with-dylan-mulvaney-sent-into-serious-panic-mode

I would venture to guess the person willingly describes (themself) as an influencer. 

Influencer, groomer.

Tomato, tomatoe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You dislike use of the term "groomer", that's clear. But here in an article the term "influencer" is used.

The marketing firm that came up with the idea to team up Bud Light with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney has been in “serious panic mode” for the last couple of months.

https://torontosun.com/business/money-news/ad-agency-that-paired-bud-light-with-dylan-mulvaney-sent-into-serious-panic-mode

I would venture to guess the person willingly describes (themself) as an influencer. 

Influencer, groomer.

Tomato, tomatoe

It is almost the same thing. 

And it's important to realize that the term 'groomer' has been around for quite a while and is generally not a pejorative historically.  We have talked for generations about the need to groom young men to grow up to be good citizens with good behavior and morals as seen by the society of the day. 

We talk about politicians being 'groomed' to be a presidential candidate or the like. 

This 'kerfuffle' began because grooming children is exactly what the more aggressive trans and gay activists wanted to do. BUT - they didn't want it to SEEM that way, they wanted to do it while denying that they had any such intent.

So now they look on it as an accusation. How DAAAARREE you claim i'm trying to influence children?!?!?!!?!  All i'm doing is changing how they think and their moral ideals! :)   LOL  Yeah -that's grooming.

So it's really not about the term. Use what ever term you like you'll still run into the same problem. They want to influence kids and have them see gays as being a positive and even desirable thing to be and to embrace and support that culture - BUT they don't want anyone to think that's what they're doing for various reasons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. You dislike use of the term "groomer", that's clear. But here in an article the term "influencer" is used.

The marketing firm that came up with the idea to team up Bud Light with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney has been in “serious panic mode” for the last couple of months.

https://torontosun.com/business/money-news/ad-agency-that-paired-bud-light-with-dylan-mulvaney-sent-into-serious-panic-mode

2. I would venture to guess the person willingly describes (themself) as an influencer. 

3. Influencer, groomer. Tomato, tomatoe

1. Ok.
2. Ok.
3. Says you.  Do you realize that they use advertising and PR terms to come up with terms that will resonate, thoughtlessly, on the mass audience ?  

If you want me to help you out with that .... yell "Defund the Police" and get cheers from a lefty crowd.  Now sit down in a quiet room and try to figure out exactly what that means.

The two teams aren't liberal/conservative - they are "thinker"/"reactor"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


3. Says you.  Do you realize that they use advertising and PR terms to come up with terms that will resonate, thoughtlessly, on the mass audience ?  

Marketing firms didn't come up with that term. The term 'internet influencer' has been around for ages and was a term that an 'influencer' came up with to describe youtubers who make a living doing commentary and videos about a very wide range of things

So - you were wrong. Which suggests you're just making shit up as you go to try to defend a position you like rather than one you arrived at logically.

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:



If you want me to help you out with that .... yell "Defund the Police" and get cheers from a lefty crowd.  Now sit down in a quiet room and try to figure out exactly what that means.

It means take money away from the police. That requires almost no time to think - that's obvious. You don't even need the quiet.

 

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


The two teams aren't liberal/conservative - they are "thinker"/"reactor"

They're both descriptive.  An influencer is someone who influences people. A groomer is someone who prepares someone for a future task or position. A groomer is just a task specific influencer at the end of the day.

The problem is that the trans/gay positive community does not want to see their activiites as being anything like that because they fear backlash fro the public. it's that simple,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Marketing firms didn't come up with that term.  

2. So - you were wrong. Which suggests you're just making shit up as you go to try to defend a position you like rather than one you arrived at logically.

3. It means take money away from the police. That requires almost no time to think - that's obvious. You don't even need the quiet.

4. A groomer is someone who prepares someone for a future task or position. A groomer is just a task specific influencer at the end of the day.

5. The problem is that the trans/gay positive community does not want to see their activiites as being anything like that because they fear backlash fro the public. it's that simple,

1. I mean 'groomer'.  That is developed in a strategy room, or at least discovered in one.
2. Well I confess it's actually a 'guess'.  I doubt there's a clear lineage as to where it came up with.  What "position" am I defending exactly when I call for people to use non-disparaging terms when referring to opposing opinions ?
3. There are so many details though.  Does it mean defund them entirely ?  Or audit their budgets ?  I see both uses commonly referred to.
4. It's commonly used as such: https://www.rainn.org/news/grooming-know-warning-signs

 

Quote

One tool common to those who sexually abuse kids is grooming: manipulative behaviors that the abuser uses to gain access to a potential victim, coerce them to agree to the abuse, and reduce the risk of being caught. 

Epistemically, words with two meanings tend to lose one meaning if it's drastically different, especially if it's pejorative.  Like the word "hussy" used to mean "housewife" at one time, but then was also used to mean promiscuous so the latter term won out.
 
5. There are lots of terms that people use.  If you are using one towards me then I prefer to have a say in that.   I offer the same courtesy....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I mean 'groomer'.  That is developed in a strategy room, or at least discovered in one.

No, it was not.  Same thing as last time, you're making that up to justify a position you've decided you like

The use of the term grooming when it comes to preparing people for some future role goes back to the 18oo's and the term grooming to mean preparing a child to be sexually exploited later goes back to at least 1985 and appears to be a direct evolution of the terms orginal use as in to 'groom a child' for adulthood.

There's no marketing department invovled. It's long been known that sexual predators 'groom' kids for later exploitation and that parents groom kids for their roles in adult life and this is basically somewhere in between.

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


2. Well I confess it's actually a 'guess'.  I doubt there's a clear lineage as to where it came up with.  What "position" am I defending exactly when I call for people to use non-disparaging terms when referring to opposing opinions ?

The position of the disparaged of course :) 

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


3. There are so many details though.  Does it mean defund them entirely ?  Or audit their budgets ?  I see both uses commonly referred to.

No details. The term means the same thing regardless - reduce money to police. Regardless of how much you defund them, you're still defunding them.

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


4. It's commonly used as such: https://www.rainn.org/news/grooming-know-warning-signs

Epistemically, words with two meanings tend to lose one meaning if it's drastically different, especially if it's pejorative.  Like the word "hussy" used to mean "housewife" at one time, but then was also used to mean promiscuous so the latter term won out.

And?

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


 
5. There are lots of terms that people use.  If you are using one towards me then I prefer to have a say in that.   I offer the same courtesy....

Your preferences aren't relevant. You can express them of course and the other person can take that into consideration if they wish. But - they are free and should be encouraged to use language they feel accurately and most completely encompasses their thoughts and intended meaning.

Of course - language is kind of a crappy way ot communicate at the end of the day so sometimes things aren't always as perfect as we'd like :)  But it's for them to mean what they say, not for you to define it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. No, it was not   ... and this is basically somewhere in between.

2. The position of the disparaged of course :) 

3. No details. The term means the same thing regardless - reduce money to police. Regardless of how much you defund them, you're still defunding them.

4. And?

5. But - they are free and should be encouraged to use language they feel accurately and most completely encompasses their thoughts and intended meaning.

6 ... not for you to define it.

1. You are proving my point by saying that this word - yes, of course established in English and updated to refer to sexual predators - is being used in a valid context now.  

Generally, political language is tested very carefully to see what plays with the base, with swing voters etc.  You may not be familiar with that.  In any case, the term 'groomer' was picked up in its current use fairly recently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory

2. Ok then - YES - the position I "like" is that people should be able to demand non-disparaging terms in civil debate.

3. So reducing the budget $1 is "defunding the police".  Fair enough, and I would say, as a conservative, "defund all government"

4. If you acknowledge that that's a common-use term, then you understand why people don't want to be called that.

5. In other words, if I can justify an insult to myself - I am free with using that term against you.

6. So you're ok with me calling you a chucklef*ck then...

-----

This board used to have strong rules for civil discourse and now you're saying that such things are not relevant.  Fair enough but ... 

I can see you are intelligent enough for me to take off ignore but not polite enough yet.  

 

Edited by Michael Hardner
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Who is allowing her to run her own business?

I probably should have used better wording. I support her in anything she does.

She sees me as allowing her to spread her wings. 

Vs it being me giving her permission like my post may have inadvertently implied.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The ideology of woke is fascinating!

Here are three very interesting approaches to defining Woke:

https://unherd.com/2023/03/the-true-left-is-not-woke/

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/of-course-you-know-what-woke-means

https://understandwoke.com/

I took the quiz and am 7/100 - anti-woke.  However, I am not "anti woke-people".  There are many good ideas and intentions in the woke movement.  I also, do not think that there is a significant danger coming from the woke ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that definition doesn't cut it.  Don't you agree with Neiman that "the Left" is not "Woke"?

"Wokeness rightly “emphasizes the ways in which particular groups have been denied justice,” but then grows so outraged by the fraudulence of our nation’s claims to “liberty and equality for all” that it forfeits all faith in the possibility of a society ordered by any force beyond raw power. The woke wisely demand “that nations and peoples face up to their criminal histories,” but dwell on historical crimes until they conclude “that all history is criminal.”"

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/do-the-woke-betray-the-lefts-true-principles.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, carepov said:

No, that definition doesn't cut it.  Don't you agree with Neiman that "the Left" is not "Woke"?

"Wokeness rightly “emphasizes the ways in which particular groups have been denied justice,” but then grows so outraged by the fraudulence of our nation’s claims to “liberty and equality for all” that it forfeits all faith in the possibility of a society ordered by any force beyond raw power.

Doesn't most everyone believe that? Isn't that the point of laws?

I think the only people who would disagree are anarchists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That seems hyperbolic.  The rights gains to LGBTQ+ folks have been organic, coming through culture change then legal change.

True, but this goes against a vital part of conservatism. Conservatism relies on your country being the greatest country ever with the greatest people ever. The only way bad social change can happen is if some outside entity forces the change, since the people would never want to change tradition. This is why conservatives are so quick to believe in conspiracy theories about Jews, Masons, Marxists, the Illuminati, in all cases a foreign group has forced change on the nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...